Smoking Policy at the Harmony Festival

Hoooo-boy--Flaming Lips at the Harmony Festival! I'd encourage those who haven't seen Flaming Lips to check them out. In addition to a unique musical style which negotiates uneasy truces between melody and noise, these guys put on a really over-the-top spectacular live show, with a nice love vibe besides.

I'm trying to decide whether to go this year, but can find no reference to smoking policy in the ad or the Harmony Festival website, and smoking policy is a biggie for me, 'cause tobacco smoke makes me sick and tends to ruin my evening. So, for me and others who need to know, please clarify--Is it gonna be a real non-smoking event (i.e., where you take it seriously enough to eject smokers from the premises), or a fake non-smoking event, (where you promise a non-smoking policy but don't really enforce it, like last year), or an event that allows smoking?

I would guess that the latter is the case, since there's no apparent mention of smoking policy in your materials that I've seen. If that's the case, let me give you public props for being honest enough this year to refrain from calling it non-smoking if you're not gonna enforce it. But anyway, clarification on the smoking policy would be helpful to those of us who have to take the possible presence of tobacco smoke into account when we decide what to attend. Thanks in advance for such clarification.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

...I'm trying to decide whether to go this year, but can find no reference to smoking policy in the ad or the Harmony Festival website,...-Is it gonna be a real non-smoking event (i.e., where you take it seriously enough to eject smokers from the premises), or a fake non-smoking event, (where you promise a non-smoking policy but don't really enforce it, like last year), or an event that allows smoking?

...Thanks in advance for such clarification.

---

Dear Deity-

We do the best we can to support "our stated position" that is a non smoking event. As this is a large outdoor festival , it is impossible to 100% enforce. We have even gone far enough to install a smoking zone for 18 years old and above at the outer reaches of the fairgrounds.

Howard Sapper/CEO
Harmony Festival Inc
www.harmonyfestival.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Debra Giusti:

Dear Deity-

---

I hope everyone realizes that my screen nickname "Deity" is a joke. Wouldn't want anyone to think I suffer from delusions of grandeur.

Quote:

---

We do the best we can to support "our stated position" that is a non smoking event.

---

That certainly was not true last year. If you'd been doing your best to enforce the promised smoke-free event, I (and others) wouldn't have been slapped in the face repeatedly by smoke from literally dozens of smokers over the course of just a few hours, usually within sight of staffers who did nothing to intervene.

Quote:

---

As this is a large outdoor festival , it is impossible to 100% enforce.

---

It is possible to enforce it much, much better than you did last year, but you must be willing to really enforce it, not just give cynical lip-service to the idea of "smoke-free". Last year, how many people did you eject from the grounds for smoking? I'm guessing the answer is zero; am I wrong? I'd really like an honest answer to that.

Understand this: if you're not clearly and consistently advertising the event as smoke-free (which I don't think you're doing this year) and not ejecting people for violating the smoke-free rule, you're simply not "doing your best" to enforce it. Most smokers are considerate enough to follow the smoke-free rule; I give props to them. But those who are so inconsiderate as to light up at a smoke-free event will not be deterred by being asked to stop smoking. They'll just put it out until the staffer is gone, then light up again. Why not?--they know they won't be held accountable. Last year, I even saw exhibitors smoking in their booths.

So here's a question that really needs an answer: Will you be ejecting people (including exhibitors) from the grounds for smoking or not? If the answer is "no", it's simply dishonest to promote the event as non-smoking, as you know as well as I that there'll be plenty of second-hand smoke for everyone and their children to breathe there.

Quote:

---

We have even gone far enough to install a smoking zone for 18 years old and above at the outer reaches of the fairgrounds.

---

Great! If you make it clear that that's the only place where smoking will be tolerated (by ejecting those who smoke in the non-smoking areas), word will get around, and soon nearly all smokers will actually use the smoking zone.

Thanks in advance for your honest reply about whether you will really be enforcing a no-smoking event this year.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I hope everyone realizes that my screen nickname "Deity" is a joke.

---

.. ah! a chance to plug one of my favorite video classics... Mr. Deity!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

.. ah! a chance to plug one of my favorite video classics... Mr. Deity!

---

Damn, I forgot all about Mr. Deity! That one's a classic!

I really think security has better things to do than look for smokers. Your in more danger from people who get drunk and act like A**es than second hand smoke. As for ejecting smokers kinda harsh I think a warning with directions to the area you can smoke is warranted. As for the second hand smoke argument I get it but really? More people are harmed by Aspirin than second hand smoke ( Check the stats only 3000 people a year confirmed die from second hand smoke related illnesses). So a warning should suffice and if they continue to violate then eject.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mrbunny:

I really think security has better things to do than look for smokers. Your in more danger from....

---

all you're doing here is saying you don't think a non-smoking policy is worth having or enforcing. Clearly others differ.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mrbunny:

I really think security has better things to do than look for smokers.

---

It's not an either/or situation. Do the other stuff and deal with the smokers. They're not hard to find; I saw dozens last year without even looking for them. Here's a clue: they have plumes of sickening, poisonous smoke coming from them--duh!

Quote:

---

Your in more danger from people who get drunk and act like A**es than second hand smoke.

---

Again, it's not an either/or situation. If harmony staff are serious about doing their job right, they'll deal with both of those issues. It's not rocket science. Besides, you seem to be overlooking the fact that smoking in a nonsmoking area constitutes "act[ing] like A**es", to use your term.

Quote:

---

As for ejecting smokers kinda harsh I think a warning with directions to the area you can smoke is warranted.

---

I have no problem with one warning, then ejection for a second violation, if there's actually follow-up, so that we don't have violaters getting one warning each from 6 different staffers on 6 different violations, during which they're poisoning everyone around them.

Quote:

---

As for the second hand smoke argument I get it but really? More people are harmed by Aspirin than second hand smoke ( Check the stats only 3000 people a year confirmed die from second hand smoke related illnesses)...

---

That's like saying "Forget about burglary; at least it ain't murder." We can always come up with an example of something that's more harmful, but it doesn't follow that the issue under discussion is therefore negligible. Besides, I haven't noticed anyone shoving aspirin down the throats of non-aspirin users like these inconsiderate smokers are imposing their smoke on nonsmokers. So your aspirin comparison, which refers to people who die from taking aspirin themselves (not from having it imposed on them against their will) is not an appropriate comparison to the number of nonsmokers dying from sidestream smoke. A more apt comparison would be to compare the few thousand annual aspirin deaths to the 400,000 annual (in the USA) tobacco deaths.

On top of that, it's not true that more are harmed by aspirin, even if you just count tobacco's harm to nonsmokers. Reams of research demonstrate that exposure to tobacco smoke harms many thousands, probably millions of nonsmokers in addition to those that are killed. Asthma and other respiratory and cardiac problems are exacerbated by sidestream smoke regardless of who's holding the cigarette. And that's on top of the extreme discomfort felt by millions of us when exposed to that poisonous crap.

I hope we can agree that people have a right to choose whether or not to smoke and that smokers therefore have a responsibility to keep their smoke out of nonconsenting people's bodies or accept that society will control their harmful behavior with consequences.

Dixon,

Let's see if I understand correctly.

You're talking about banning Marijuana smoking at an outdoor concert and festival in Northern California. I assume that's what you're opposed to, given the setting.

When I've been to H-Fest there has been some tobacco smoking going on, but the predominant smoking activity I've observed and inhaled second hand, has always been Pot. (I may not go this year because the music does not thrill me, and my money is tight. I'll probably decide at the last minute, one way or t'other.)

So, at the premiere early summer hippy fest in Sonoma County, what I call the best girl/female/woman watching event of the season (among the many charms that H-Fest holds!!?? I don't go there just to scope pretty women!!) you want everybody to stop blowing bowls and joints. Uh Huh.

And just how long has it been that you've lived here?

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Here's how I handle it. I don't like smoke of any kind, it irritates my respiratory tract. I am an asthmatic, currently asymptomatic for years. I especially hate tobacco and any kind of petrochemical smoke. Nausea, headache, etc..

I go upwind. If that is not feasible I respectfully and politely ask them to desist, or move somewhere that it doesn't affect me. This of course depends on who has territorial dominance and that can be a tricky negotiation in public places. Generally things work out.

Sometimes, rarely, they don't. As everyone knows, I am not loath to assert my rights in public. If I have to appeal to the authorities, depending upon specifics, I can reluctantly do so.

But you want the Peace Cops to crack down on dope smoking at H-Fest. What, pray tell, have you been smoking!?

The H-Fest staff are not going to admit publicly that they tolerate recreational use of wacky weed. It's still illegal if anyone hasn't noticed. They have to negotiate permits, cops, insurance, financial risk, etc..

Hectoring them for a clear and definitive answer to your question/demand? I wouldn't put money on it.

If your campaign is to point out the contradictions and elisions in their written policies vs. their actions? Congratulations, mission accomplished.

So, what else do you think you can expect to get out of this, uh, effort?

(Consciously resisting the use of "Crusade", for geopolitical/historical reasons that are obvious.)

As you know, in spite of both of our best efforts, Reason, does not always prevail. And what is reasonable in any given situation, is often subject to dispute.

Cheers Mate! See you at H-Fest? If I go, it will be the day Michael Franti headlines.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Let's see if I understand correctly. You're talking about banning Marijuana smoking at an outdoor concert and festival in Northern California. I assume that's what you're opposed to, given the setting.

---

You assume wrong, as a reading of my previous post would have shown you. My main concern is tobacco smoke, as that's waaaaay more dangerous than marijuana smoke. Also, in my experience, most people, including those who smoke both substances, agree that tobacco smoke is more acrid and unpleasant than pot smoke. Up until I quit (almost 3 years ago), I enjoyed pot smoking for many years. However, as a crusader for people's right not to have smoke imposed on them against their will, I stopped smoking pot in places where it would expose nonconsenting people awhile back, as I felt it would be hypocritical to do so while opposing exposure to tobacco smoke.

Having said that, I myself would be happy if they just went after the really dangerous stuff, tobacco smoke, and left the pot smokers alone. But I do urge pot smokers to smoke off in some corner where they're not exposing nonconsenting folks, or to eat it instead of smoking it (try that with tobacco!).

Quote:

---

I go upwind. If that is not feasible I respectfully and politely ask them to desist, or move somewhere that it doesn't affect me. This of course depends on who has territorial dominance and that can be a tricky negotiation in public places. Generally things work out.

---

We shouldn't have to negotiate for our rights with people who have already shown lack of regard for them. Should we negotiate with pickpockets not to rip us off, or with perverts not to cop a feel without consent? This is a rights issue. By the time they've picked our pocket or copped a feel or poisoned us with their smoke, negotiation time is over; it's consequences time.

Quote:

---

Hectoring them for a clear and definitive answer to your question/demand?

---

Dammit, Miles; I'm not hectoring anybody (If you think I am, specify something I've said that constitutes hectoring). I'm trying to reason with people who are less than forthcoming, and I'm insisting that people not defraud me with promises that are, in effect, lies, such as calling an event "smoke free" and then not doing what they can to make it so. It's inaccurate and unfair for you to call that "hectoring".

Quote:

---

So, what else do you think you can expect to get out of this, uh, effort?

---

You seem to have forgotten, Miles, that from day one of this thread I've suggested another option, in case they find enforcing the no smoking rule to be more than they're willing to do: Just don't call it a smoke free event. I even complimented them for being truthful in my first post on this thread when I thought (mistakenly, as it turned out) that they were refraining from making the smoke-free claim this year. Somebody wants to run a smoky event? Fine! No problema! Just don't lie to me, cynically collecting my money by falsely advertising a "smoke free" event when you know damn well you're not gonna make that happen. Let them have their smoky event; just don't call it smoke free. Don't lie to me! :beg: It's simply a truth in advertising, ethical issue. Now, do you have a problem with that, Miles?

Quote:

---

As you know, in spite of both of our best efforts, Reason, does not always prevail.

---

Yup, but when it doesn't, it's not because I didn't give it my best shot. You, on the other hand, would do well to get clear on people's expressed positions before criticizing them, and to refrain from accusing people of nasty things like hectoring unless they're actually doing it.:footstomp:

I just scanned through last few comments, but I'll add that usually the day people chose to attend, when picking one day, is for whomever the headliner is on the main stage. Well, the last few years have been impossible to stand being anywhere near the main stage (I used to LOVE to squeeze to the front) because you will be suffocated in a cloud of tobacco smoke. Now, I don't care about performer on main stage for this reason. Just enjoy the sound from outside the gates (as it is SO loud anyway, and you can't see a thing anyway...unless you want to squeeze into the smoke like I said). I've always hated cigarette smoke (different than pot smoke or sage, or even organic natural tobacco for that matter, etc) since I quit at the age of 18. The tobacco smoke has gotten far worse at the fest, especially since it became a camper festival; it's because It's also gotten far worse in the country, and Harmony fest could care less because they took the "health" out of the fair. I heard a rumor a few weeks ago when I complained to someone about the smoke that "this year" they would have a dedicated smoking area and take it seriously (they had one before just for pot smoke from what I could tell, but no one obeyed it). From what I see in this thread the rumor must be false because no one has jumped in to say they are taking cig. smoking seriously over there at fest. Well, I will not be attending unless there is a miracle volunteer position that opens (not in the parking lot and not for 6 hours per day for all three days). There are a lot of other fun things going on that weekend as well. I can't see paying top dollar to see the mainline acts that you can't really see because of cig. smoke and packed to the gills. If there were a local's rate, like for those of us living in walking distance...MAYBE would consider....BUT HIGHLY DOUBT it....I will dream on.

Hey Dixon, Maybe we should get to be volunteers to bust the cig. smokers!!! That would be a good new job, hey!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sabrina:

Hey Dixon, Maybe we should get to be volunteers to bust the cig. smokers!!! That would be a good new job, hey!

---

You betcha! One of those jobs that would be unpleasant but, in a certain way, very satisfying.

Dixon,

"I'm insisting that people not defraud me with promises that are, in effect, lies, such as calling an event "smoke free" and then not doing what they can to make it so. It's inaccurate and unfair for you to call that "hectoring"."

Adamantly repeating a question, after you've gotten a response, that you deem inadequate and I mostly agree is, such as the response you received from Debra Guisti, is my definition of hectoring.

As for the distinction between your demand applying to tobacco smoking and not pot. That was not clear from my first and periodic reading of your posts in this thread. The consistent term you have used has been "smoking" without a consistent clear distinction made between specific substances.

It was in light of that pattern that I replied. Partly light-heartedly, partly seriously.

Feel free to dig up the language you wrote yourself, to show how I misunderstood you and that your message is focused on your problem with tobacco smoke. You're the one making the assertion that you did, that makes it your obligation to support that claim. (OK, on a reread, I see in your previous post to my previous post that you replied to and I'm now replying back to you about, that you specify tobacco smoke. Twice.

So, since I opened my previous post with, something like, "Let's see if I understand correctly." that means I was asking a question (even without a question mark, the syntax indicates it is an interrogative) and everything that I wrote followed from the assumption that I understood you. Getting huffy about not reading you carefully enough, well it's not hectoring, but it fits the pattern here for your high moral dudgeon.

I too tell people that they haven't carefully read me here, all the time. I have never demanded that they do so, or pushed them to repeat the language that they've ignored or misunderstood or missed. I just don't see any percentage in that. Even if I had it, I wouldn't want such power over them to be able to demand that. It's kind of overbearing and officious. Don't you think?)

You seem quite exercised by this issue. As I tried to point out with an attempt at humor, pot smoking is pretty much de rigueur at large outdoor concerts (not to mention indoor ones) in this region, this state and many parts of this country. Whatever you think of that, and I expressed my own views, it's pretty much a part of our culture and has been for several decades.

Not all parts of the country, when I was at Festival Internationale de Louisiane in Lafayette two years ago, it was a much much more repressed scene. Even in that college town, the state drug laws are so draconian that the kids get high at home, not at the show. I know, because I asked some of them and that's what they told me.

You're not calling for harsher casual use drug laws are you? Didn't think so.

By the way, in Lafayette and later at Jazzfest, there was a buttload of tobacco smoking going on. Including lots of posturing males with cigars. It totally sucked.

In light of all that, your assertions of rights, and appeals/demands that the "authorities" do something about it, seem a bit emotionally intense and impractical.

I find most smokers, of whatever, will be considerate if approached with respect. Especially if concerns for children and those who are made ill are part of what you're asking them to consider.

Demanding that the cops, of whatever kind, crack down on them, tends not to be an effective means to engender cooperation. In fact it most often engenders resistance, defiance and open non-cooperation.

And we're talking H-Fest! Retro-hippies of all ages, and some of the Ur-Hippies still living the rebellion, smoking pot at a commercial party. I'm shocked I tell you!! Outraged!!! Something must be done about it!!!!!

The things I find irritating at H-Fest are, in order of importance to me: The heat and sun that time of year and lack of shade in the mainstage concert area, testosterone pumped young men of various cultural affinities aggressively strutting their stuff (the vibe at H-Fest is usually so mellow that for the most part this is not that big a deal, but when it happens, it still bugs me) being constantly love-bombed/advertised to from the MC on the stage, then clove cigarette smoke, then tobacco smoke, , then the territorial "I'm going to stake out prime viewing and dancing ground for ten people with my blankets and chairs, and maybe three or four of us will show up late in the concert and use it. Maybe not." lawn colonialist crowd. Then pot smoke, if it's thick enough and raspy enough, it also makes me ill. Then litter. (Although people, usually others than those who dropped it, tend to pick most of it up at the end of the day. I'm in the latter group.)

Maybe I should demand that overtly macho young men be given sensitivity training before being allowed into the gates? How well do you think that will go over with the H-Fest crew!? Wanna support my cause? Form an alliance?

How's this for a plan, an anti-smoking of anything outside designated isolated down-wind smoking ghettos policy (you're familiar with the Free Speech Ghetto at demos in the past couple of decades, right?) by teams of clown cops wielding squirt guns and misters shaped like rubber truncheons and rubber chickens, who are tasked to put out the coal on or in any joint, cigarette, pipe, blunt or stogy? Red bulb noses and funny outfits and makeup on them all? How do you think that would go down with the smokers?

Don't even get me started about officious cigar and tobacco pipe smokers!!!! That's the worst, most odious kind of smoke from my sensitive perspective! Instant headache and nausea. Almost as bad as a plastic fire...

I find that large concerts, or other events such as demonstrations, that are mob scenes, are less and less interesting and comfortable for me as I mature and advance along this road of time we call life. I only expose myself to such conditions if the rewards outweigh the risks and discomforts.

Mostly because of my extreme distaste for intense heat, and my congenital inability to tan, I have more often than not, decided not to go to H-Fest every year, and I've only been to Kate Wolf twice, the last time two years ago. I was utterly miserable because of the 115 degree fahrenheit temp the last day on Sunday.

Combined with tight finances after being laid off in 2/2010, sometimes the discomforts far outweigh the rewards. Perhaps if I were so discomfited by others smoke, I would add that to my calculus.

There are places where people smoke outside that I quit hanging out at. Russian River Brewing, The Acehole. Tobacco smoke was the top, but not the only reason, I quit habituating them both. It sucks, but it's reality.

Peace Out,

>>> teams of clown cops wielding squirt guns and misters shaped like rubber truncheons and rubber chickens, who are tasked to put out the coal on or in any joint, cigarette, pipe, blunt or stogy? Red bulb noses and funny outfits and makeup on them all?

Frankly, I think this is a fabulous idea, and extended to litterers and any other offenders against basic politeness. Several trios of clown cops, well coached and actually funny but serious in their mission in calling comic attention to malefactors, could work wonders and be a real addition to the festival. (Pot smokers would have to take their chances, but they're used to that.) Get James Pelican & some graduates of Dell'Arte!

-Conrad

Much obliged Conrad!

The only problem I foresee, at least one of them, is that when mobs of irate mixed substance smokers start chasing down the Anti-Smoking Clown Posses (Smokalos!) the large flappy oversized shoes typical of clowns might hinder the squirt police when they attempt to make their getaways. Could be really messy.

On the other hand, as a scene for a movie or a play, I think it has potential!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Adamantly repeating a question, after you've gotten a response, that you deem inadequate and I mostly agree is, such as the response you received from Debra Guisti, is my definition of hectoring.

---

I'd suggest that if you want to communicate clearly with others, Miles, you use words as commonly defined rather than with your own idiosyncratic definitions. "Hectoring" means bullying, and I did not bully anyone. Do you think it's somehow inappropriate for me to insist on some basic info so I can decide whether or not it's safe for me to attend an event with my sensitivity to tobacco smoke? Or to insist on truth in advertising--i.e., that people shouldn't maximize their ticket sales by promising a smoke-free event if they don't intend to do their best to deliver as promised?

Quote:

---

As for the distinction between your demand applying to tobacco smoking and not pot. That was not clear from my first and periodic reading of your posts in this thread. The consistent term you have used has been "smoking" without a consistent clear distinction made between specific substances.

---

In my post #8 in this thread, I mentioned tobacco three times (not just twice as you said). I never mentioned pot until you brought it up.

Having said that, even though pot smoke doesn't bother me, I don't want to take the position that it should be allowed in a non-smoking event. It's not just about what hurts me. Who the fuck am I? I'm nobody. It's about everybody's rights. Those who don't want to breathe pot have the right to be spared that in public places regardless of whether it bothers me. Unlike many people, I believe that everyone's rights should be protected, even if it's not my ox that's being gored. It's called empathy, along with a non-self-centered sense of justice.

Quote:

---

Getting huffy about not reading you carefully enough, well it's not hectoring, but it fits the pattern here for your high moral dudgeon.
I too tell people that they haven't carefully read me here, all the time. I have never demanded that they do so, or pushed them to repeat the language that they've ignored or misunderstood or missed. I just don't see any percentage in that. Even if I had it, I wouldn't want such power over them to be able to demand that. It's kind of overbearing and officious. Don't you think?)

---

Dammit Miles, all I said was "You...would do well to get clear on people's expressed positions before criticizing them, and to refrain from accusing people of nasty things like hectoring unless they're actually doing it." Those are both absolutely reasonable responses, gently expressed, to unreasonable things you'd said. What kind of response do you expect when you publicly criticize people on the basis of your distortions of their positions because of your sloppy-ass reading, and falsely accuse them of nasty things like hectoring? For you to characterize my gentle, constructive response as "huffy", "demand[ing]", "push[ing]", "overbearing" and "officious" is...well, really huffy, overbearing and officious. On top of that, it shows a side of you I don't recall having seen before--apparently unable to accept gracefully even polite criticism that you really had coming to you. And if you don't think my criticism was polite, perhaps you could suggest a better way I could have worded it without sacrificing the message. Sheeeesh, Miles, quit whining. Grow some balls and take my reasonable criticism like a man--you've earned it with some irresponsible statements. Learn from it and move on. Again, sheeeesh!

Quote:

---

You're not calling for harsher casual use drug laws are you? Didn't think so.

---

I believe in the legalization of all drugs for those over 18. And I'm clear on the fact that the right to decide for oneself about whether to use a drug includes the right not to have a drug imposed on you by someone else. And, that right trumps someone's right to use their drug of choice in any particular public place and time.

Quote:

---

By the way, in Lafayette and later at Jazzfest, there was a buttload of tobacco smoking going on. Including lots of posturing males with cigars. It totally sucked.

---

Of course it sucked. Wouldn't it have been nice if there'd been an enforced ban on smoking there?

Quote:

---

In light of all that, your assertions of rights, and appeals/demands that the "authorities" do something about it, seem a bit emotionally intense and impractical.

---

Imposing poisonous smoke on others against their will in a public place is a violation of their rights, a physical assault. It's not essentially different than picking their pocket or copping a feel without permission, except that it's worse, as, unlike those other examples, 2nd-hand smoke kills some thousands a year and makes millions ill. I'm sure you have no problem with police enforcing prohibitions against picking pockets or copping feels, so how is it that making people sick with smoke should be exempt from penalties? I have yet to hear you or anyone make a reasonable case for why that's acceptable while so many less harmful behaviors aren't.

Quote:

---

I find most smokers, of whatever, will be considerate if approached with respect.

---

Note that if they've lit up in a public place, especially a designated non-smoking area, they've already treated you and everyone else around with disrespect.

Besides, what if they refuse to comply, as happens sometimes? Would you endorse enforcement then, or just bend over and smile back at them as they ream you, Miles?

Quote:

---

Demanding that the cops, of whatever kind, crack down on them, tends not to be an effective means to engender cooperation. In fact it most often engenders resistance, defiance and open non-cooperation.

---

That's true of every single crime, but I'm not hearing you argue against enforcement of anything other than smoking policies. Again, why do you think we should exempt that particular way of hurting people from enforcement while still busting the pickpockets, etc?

Quote:

---

Maybe I should demand that overtly macho young men be given sensitivity training before being allowed into the gates? How well do you think that will go over with the H-Fest crew!? Wanna support my cause? Form an alliance?

---

I'll politely ignore your sarcastic tone, Miles--I wouldn't want you to see me as "huffy". I don't get a clear idea of what you mean by "overtly macho" or "aggressively strutting their stuff"; are these guys violating others in some way, or do you just find them irritating? Let's be very clear on this--it's not about what you or I or anybody find irritating, it's about people actually hurting people. Do you understand that the smoke issue (at least with tobacco), is about people doing physical harm to others? Perhaps you're confused or in denial about that; that would explain your unaccountable desire to exempt inconsiderate smoking from deterrent penalties.

Quote:

---

How's this for a plan, an anti-smoking of anything outside designated isolated down-wind smoking ghettos policy...by teams of clown cops wielding squirt guns and misters shaped like rubber truncheons and rubber chickens, who are tasked to put out the coal on or in any joint, cigarette, pipe, blunt or stogy? Red bulb noses and funny outfits and makeup on them all? How do you think that would go down with the smokers?

---

That would be better than nothing.

Quote:

---

There are places where people smoke outside that I quit hanging out at. Russian River Brewing, The Acehole. Tobacco smoke was the top, but not the only reason, I quit habituating them both. It sucks, but it's reality.

---

Murder--it sucks, but it's reality. Oh well. Rape--it sucks, but it's reality. Oh well. War--it sucks, but it's reality. Oh well.

Miles, instead of letting inconsiderate assholes needlessly restrict your freedoms, essentially banning you from places you'd like to go, maybe you should man up and start supporting enforcement of policies that will stop these fuckwads from hurting you and others, just like we do with other violations.

You've commented on my being emotional about this issue. You're damn right I'm emotional! I'm deeply regretful that, as a devoted music fan, I've had so many concerts over the years utterly destroyed by getting so sick from cigarette smoke that I couldn't enjoy the music. In some cases, they were one-chance-in-a-lifetime opportunities to see unique musical artists, destroyed by inconsiderate assholes smoking around me. I'm scared that one of these days when I politely insist that someone put out his ciggie in a nonsmoking venue, he's going to stab, shoot or beat me. I'm horrified that I worked for 6 years in a mental hospital that was suffused with tobacco smoke all the time (though it was supposed to be smoke-free), so that I was sick with respiratory ailments for at least 3 months each year most of those years (one year I was sick for 6 months). I'm sad that so many innocent children get sick (including the skyrocketing asthma rates) and some will eventually die, due to their parents' and others' smoke. I'm disgusted and disappointed that so many people, including generally intelligent and progressive guys like you, are in such deep denial about these realities that progress remains slow. And most of all, I'm angry about all of the above. Does any of that seem inappropriate, Miles? Perhaps I seem a little too huffy for your tender sensibilities? Tough shit. As long as people are stepping on my or anybody's toes, they're gonna have to deal with my anger.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

You've commented on my being emotional about this issue. You're damn right I'm emotional! I'm deeply regretful that, as a devoted music fan, I've had so many concerts over the years utterly destroyed by getting so sick from cigarette smoke that I couldn't enjoy the music. In some cases, they were one-chance-in-a-lifetime opportunities to see unique musical artists, destroyed by inconsiderate assholes smoking around me. I'm scared that one of these days when I politely insist that someone put out his ciggie in a nonsmoking venue, he's going to stab, shoot or beat me. I'm horrified that I worked for 6 years in a mental hospital that was suffused with tobacco smoke all the time (though it was supposed to be smoke-free), so that I was sick with respiratory ailments for at least 3 months each year most of those years (one year I was sick for 6 months). I'm sad that so many innocent children get sick (including the skyrocketing asthma rates) and some will eventually die, due to their parents' and others' smoke. I'm disgusted and disappointed that so many people, including generally intelligent and progressive guys like you, are in such deep denial about these realities that progress remains slow. And most of all, I'm angry about all of the above. Does any of that seem inappropriate, Miles? Perhaps I seem a little too huffy for your tender sensibilities? Tough shit. As long as people are stepping on my or anybody's toes, they're gonna have to deal with my anger.

---

Dixon,

From what I've read in this thread, you seem far more intent on bashing those who smoke, than making an informed, rational decision on whether or not to attend an event based on the level of enforcement on a non-smoking policy.
To read your responses sounds like you do NOT believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and that you feel that everyone should put your needs first.

If you had your way, the organizers would search everyone who entered this festival for tobacco products, seize any they found, and start cracking skulls of those who smuggled in tobacco products and smoked them out in the open air.

That solution sounds just like those who kept Sonic from offering free wi-fi in the downtown area of Sebastopol. These few people claim how "sick" they get, and obtained an ordinance banning free wi-fi in the city limits. Can any one of those people tell me how less damaging the locked wi-fi signals are? If someone drives through Sebastopol with a smart phone that picks up (locked and unlocked) wi-fi signal, they'd notice that there are very few areas that don't have a wi-fi signal.

If you can't obtain the answer you desire (absolute guarantee of smoke-free environment), then the answer is simple. Don't go to the event. Simply park across the street in the parking lot, roll down your windows and listen to the music. That is, unless you get sick by inhaling the exhaust fumes of the motor vehicles that are driving around you looking for a parking spot. If you do, then I'd suggest simply staying home.

The other alternative is to picket the Harmony Festival with sign(s) airing your grievances.

Dixon,

You're clearly exercised about all of this. That's your right. I don't care for second hand smoke, and it makes me sick, as I've already indicated in all of my replies here. I am not interested in a detailed textual analysis of who said what to who first and whether or not it is appropriate or rational. I really have other more interesting and important matters to attend to. (And please, don't trot out the old tired, "then why did you comment if you don't care?" trope. I care enough to comment, but not enough to belabor or nitpick your or my points.)

You are the self appointed arbiter of rationality here in waccolandia, many times we are on the same page in various discussions/debates. I normally appreciate your efforts and support them. All I tried to do was to point out some holes in your sense of pragmatism and your style of delivery for those points. One of the areas we differ is that I recognize that logic cannot be reduced to reality claims, especially with regard to The Social.

This discussion (which I still insist, good luck convincing me otherwise, consists mostly on your part as a series of tendentious diatribes. About Rules and Justice and Life and Death!!! And obviously, I don't expect you to agree with me or to be comfortable with my view!?) this discussion is about people smoking at an outdoor hippy fest in Northern California.

There're the rules and there's what people do. How that works out in detail in our society is the stuff of academic careers.

If you expect the organizers of H-Fest to strictly enforce no smoking rules, of whatever substance, at their event, you're not participating in the same time / space reality that I have experienced for thirty-five years. That's all I sought, rather comically in my mind, to point out.

If you didn't like it, wow, what a surprise. And making second hand smoke analogous to rape and murder...? You're the self-appointed arbiter of reason here, right?

You get more flies with honey, rather than vinegar. Calling for announcements from the stage to smoke away from, downwind from, the main crowd. That's one thing that I find quite reasonable.

Insisting on a strict enforcement of the letter of announced policies (required by law, I believe, although I am not a legal expert in that or any other area, well, expect Draft Registration, and legal stuff having to do with public protest, where I am pretty well versed, but not second hand smoke ordinances) and then repeatedly and heatedly insisting that full enforcement is the only reasonable alternative (whether you agree that your approach meets the criteria for hectoring, bullying, badgering, demanding, insisting, whatev') well, good luck with that. And by "that" I mean getting the satisfaction you are seeking by your efforts here.

I pick my battles, based on the threats I'm opposing, especially with regard to the magnitude of the danger, the possibilities of success, and the means at hand. That's what I call reasonable. Just criticizing people cause I disagree with them, and don't like what they have to say, about me, or whatever the issue at hand is, the "outrage du jour"? I'd never get offline and I spend enough time here as it is!

Yes, I'll weigh in if I think I have something unusual, or even better yet, useful, to contribute. And it goes without saying that unless I'm asserting documented facts, it's just my opinion. But this is ultimately online chat. How much social significance do you think it really has in the greater scheme (whatever that may be) of things?

Sharing information is one thing. I find this media useful for that. (Assuming anyone is really paying attention. There is considerable evidence, I would suggest, to the contrary.) Bickering about who said what to who and how appropriate or inappropriate that is?

Tempest in a teapot. But please, boil away if that's your thang.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:

From what I've read in this thread, you seem far more intent on bashing those who smoke...

---

I've already had to say this to Miles in this thread, but you need to hear it too, Imagery: You ought to read people's posts carefully before you make an ass of yourself by publicly criticizing them for something they didn't even say! I've never attacked people for being smokers, Imagery. In this very thread, I've said things like "Most smokers are considerate enough to follow the smoke-free rule; I give props to them" and "I hope we can agree that people have a right to choose whether or not to smoke...". My position is that everyone has a right to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting others. That includes the right to use any drugs they want, even extremely lethal and addictive ones like tobacco. I have no moral judgment whatsoever on considerate smokers. If you think I've ever said or implied otherwise, show me the quote. If you can't find such a quote from me (and you can't; I've never "bash(ed) those who smoke"), it would be nice for you to publicly acknowledge that.

All of the ire I've expressed toward smokers has been toward the inconsiderate ones--those who insist on smoking in nonsmoking areas. The issue is not their smoking, which they have every right to do, but their imposing it on others in a nonsmoking area. Do you have trouble understanding that distinction, Imagery? Can we agree that every adult has a right to smoke, but no one has a right to do it in a nonsmoking area?

Quote:

---

...than making an informed, rational decision on whether or not to attend an event based on the level of enforcement on a non-smoking policy.

---

Again, Imagery, you ignore what I've already clearly said at least once in this thread: I've been trying to get a clear message from the Harmony folks about whether they'd be enforcing the rule precisely so I could make "an informed, rational decision on whether or not to attend an event based on the level of enforcement on a non-smoking policy", and they've refused to give me that info, which is the source of much of my frustration. Imagine my further frustration to have you imply I'm not trying to do that when I've been trying it throughout the thread and have been stymied by the Harmony folks' clamming up on the issue. Again--read and try to understand what I'm saying before you make an ass of yourself (again) by publicly criticizing me for supposedly not doing what I've clearly been trying to do all along! Duh!

Quote:

---

To read your responses sounds like you do NOT believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and that you feel that everyone should put your needs first.

---

Well, that's three for three so far, Imagery. Once again you demonstrate that you either haven't read or haven't understood my position by attacking me on the basis of a position that's clearly not mine. Did you not read the part where I advocated for the right of people to be free of unwanted pot smoke even though it doesn't bother me? Even when I was a pot smoker I came around to believing that I didn't have the right to impose it on those around me if they didn't want it. How is that "put(ting) (my) needs first", Imagery? Furthermore, you accuse me of "NOT believ(ing) that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Does this mean that you think there are more smokers who "need" to smoke right here and now, rather than taking it to a more appropriate place, than there are people around who'd prefer not to breathe their poisonous smoke? If you think that anybody needs to smoke, and especially if you think that they need it so urgently that it can't wait for an appropriate time and place--well, perhaps you need to talk to a drug abuse counselor about your need.

Quote:

---

If you had your way, the organizers would search everyone who entered this festival for tobacco products, seize any they found, and start cracking skulls of those who smuggled in tobacco products and smoked them out in the open air.

---

Distortion number four (out of four) for Imagery, and this one is expressed in such a dramatic exaggerated way! People have a right to carry their tobacco, as long as they don't impose the smoke on others by smoking it in a nonsmoking area. Again, I've never said otherwise. IT'S NOT ABOUT BEING A SMOKER; IT'S ABOUT RESPECTING EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR THEMSELVES BY NOT MAKING THEM SMOKERS AGAINST THEIR WILL BY IMPOSING YOUR SMOKE ON THEM! If they choose to victimize others by doing so, they are asking for consequences. Again, Imagery, can we agree that people don't have a right to smoke in a nonsmoking event? Please don't ignore this question.

Quote:

---

That solution sounds just like those who kept Sonic from offering free wi-fi in the downtown area of Sebastopol. These few people claim how "sick" they get, and obtained an ordinance banning free wi-fi in the city limits. Can any one of those people tell me how less damaging the locked wi-fi signals are? If someone drives through Sebastopol with a smart phone that picks up (locked and unlocked) wi-fi signal, they'd notice that there are very few areas that don't have a wi-fi signal.

---

Distortion number five (you're really racking them up, Imagery)! You're comparing apples and oranges. As you and I apparently agree, wi-fi probably doesn't hurt anybody. In contrast, sidestream tobacco smoke is an extremely toxic substance which has been shown in numerous studies to increase respiratory problems of all kinds in millions of nonsmokers a year. There is also reason to believe it actually kills some thousands of nonsmokers a year, though the number is controversial. To talk as if tobacco smoke is analogous to wi-fi ignores all that. Surely you're not one of those troglodytes who is in denial about the danger of sidestream tobacco smoke, are you, Imagery?

Quote:

---

If you can't obtain the answer you desire (absolute guarantee of smoke-free environment), then the answer is simple. Don't go to the event.

---

And distortion number six. You're six for six, Imagery--a perfect game! A smoke-free environment was not the only thing I said would satisfy me. Do you remember what the other alternative was? No? Think hard now--I said it clearly at least twice. You still don't know? I said that if they weren't gonna enforce a smoke-free event, just don't call it that! Duh! A simple truth in advertising issue. Don't call it smoke-free, and I'll know to stay away without confusion or complaint. Just don't lie to me, and we'll all be happy. How anyone can see that as unreasonable is beyond me.

Now look back over this post, Imagery, and over your post that this one is responding to. Do you see that every main point you made was based on a distortion? Five of your distortions were misattributions of unreasonable positions to me even though I'd made it clear in previous posts that those were not my positions! That's the logical fallacy known as "attacking a straw figure", and it made up your entire post, except for your other distortion, which was your inaccurate equivalence of tobacco smoke with harmless wi-fi radiation. This must either mean that you have a lot of trouble understanding what people write clearly in black or white, or, more likely, that this issue is such a button pusher for you that it has short-circuited your rationality and caused you to emotionally spew a misguided virulent attack against me. Offhand, I'd guess that you're a smoker who is so addicted to the shit that you have trouble controlling your behavior appropriately in nonsmoking areas, so would like to think that you have a "need' and a "right" to expose others to your smoke in public. Did I guess right, or is there some other explanation for your being so out of touch with basic reality on this issue?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:

Dixon,
From what I've read in this thread, you seem far more intent on bashing those who smoke, than making an informed, rational decision on whether or not to attend an event based on the level of enforcement on a non-smoking policy.

---

I think he was doing both, and more. He expressed his disgust at the effect on him of people smoking, he complained that the event was advertised as smoke free, but that the organizers did little to enforce that, which he said was false advertising. He also indicated that he would probably make the rational decision not to attend in future if he could not be assured that the situation would change. He said all of these things in a somewhat more dramatic way, and you might feel that a more moderated tone would strengthen his argument, but I did not get the impression that he was solely intent on bashing anyone.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:

To read your responses sounds like you do NOT believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and that you feel that everyone should put your needs first.

---

So are you saying that smokers are the many whose needs (?) outweigh those of the few who object? Even if it were so, one must balance the nature of those needs: the feeding of an addiction on one side against the need to breath air as free as possible of harmful substances on the other. Second hand smoke has been conclusively proven to be harmful.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:

If you had your way, the organizers would search everyone who entered this festival for tobacco products, seize any they found, and start cracking skulls of those who smuggled in tobacco products and smoked them out in the open air.

---

Rather than recasting his suggestions in extreme and provocative terms, you would be more convincing if you quoted his actual words and responded to them with your refutation. Essentially you are portraying him as some kind of crazy extremist. As I said above, Dixon can be forthright and even abrasive in his posts, but he is no skull-cracker.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:

That solution sounds just like those who kept Sonic from offering free wi-fi in the downtown area of Sebastopol. These few people claim how "sick" they get, and obtained an ordinance banning free wi-fi in the city limits. Can any one of those people tell me how less damaging the locked wi-fi signals are? If someone drives through Sebastopol with a smart phone that picks up (locked and unlocked) wi-fi signal, they'd notice that there are very few areas that don't have a wi-fi signal.

---

You will have to supply further detail to convince me that this example is in any way analagous to the discussion in this thread.

Patrick Brinton

EDIT: I wrote this after reading your post in the Digest, but before reading Dixon's response above, which did not make it into the Digest. Apologies for redundancies.

Also for all your info there has been a facebook dialog about their No smoking No drugs No dogs No coolers policy at the fest. If you want to see it or join in, here it is: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150281708166289&set=pt.64174851288&type=1&theater.

And, here is the actual City of Santa Rosa No smoking ordinance: https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/a...nance3793.html

From what it looks like, many areas of the Harmony Fest should be illegal for smoking Cigs within 20 feet, especially if there are any employees of the festival or the fairgrounds there.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]
Dixon,

You're clearly exercised about all of this. That's your right. I don't care for second hand smoke, and it makes me sick, as I've already indicated in all of my replies here. I am not interested in a detailed textual analysis of who said what to who first and whether or not it is appropriate or rational. I really have other more interesting and important matters to attend to. (And please, don't trot out the old tired, "then why did you comment if you don't care?" trope. I care enough to comment, but not enough to belabor or nitpick your or my points.)

---

I feel that I have to pass comment on this. I feel that the above paragraph is unfair and demeaning. First, nobody is engaging in textual analysis; Dixon responded in some detail to your fairly lengthy and personally critical post. You can reasonably a) admit that he is right and apologize, b) respond to his points in a constructive manner or c) choose not to participate further by not particpating further.

To suddenly proclaim, when presented with a well-argued (if heated) refutation of your post, that all of this is unimportant and uninteresting, is avoidance, with more than a hint of self-aggrandizement (I am above such petty concerns). And to head off the perfectly logical and obvious response, which is "why go to the trouble of a long and detailed post, making strongly stated arguments, if you are not willing to defend your position?" by describing it as an old and tired trope, and to unilaterally label any further discussion laboring and nitpicking, just takes the cake. Game, set and match to Miles, opponent, line judge and referee! No further play is possible under the stated rules.

The rest of your post seems to pretty much restate your previous points without addressing anything Dixon said in response. I am a little puzzled by your position. You seem to agree that smoking is unpleasant, and you do not yourself want to be around it, but you have a problem with Dixon wanting the Harmony Festival to match its promises in this regard with its actions. He asked that they either (and preferably) enforce their stated policy (and I do not think he specified any means of enforcement; all the hysteria on that account has come from his detractors, who have suggested draconian methods as if he were demanding them) or stop calling it a smoke-free event. When the response from the management was inadequate (as even you agreed) he pointed that out.

Your attitude seems to be that you can't fight it, you may as well just adapt to it as best you can, and there is no point in getting all uppity and making a stink. I strongly disagree with this approach to community issues, and I support Dixon in this matter. I think he is being unfairly attacked, and that he is justified in his responses, and I understand his frustration. I am really surpirsed that in a generally fairly enlightened community such as this his point of view has met with such opposition.

Patrick Brinton

Seems like you guys have beat this (and each other) to a bloody pulp.
How about you just let this go?
:heart:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

You're clearly exercised about all of this.

---

Yes indeedy I am! As are you, to some degree, or you wouldn't be spending hours on screeds peppered with exclamation points and distortions.

Quote:

---

I am not interested in a detailed textual analysis of who said what to who first and whether or not it is appropriate or rational. I really have other more interesting and important matters to attend to. (And please, don't trot out the old tired, "then why did you comment if you don't care?" trope. I care enough to comment, but not enough to belabor or nitpick your or my points.)

---

That's funny--when you thought you had a case to make, you were in fact very interested in "detailed textual analysis", and "belabor(ing) and nitpick(ing)" (see, for instance, your post #14 in this thread). It's not until I use those things to have my say, and incidentally to call you on some of your bullshit, that you're suddenly "not interested" in that sort of thing.

Quote:

---

You are the self appointed arbiter of rationality here in waccolandia...

---

Well, there's a snotty little jab. I've never claimed the authority that would make me an arbiter, have I, Miles? What offense have I committed to deserve being called "the self appointed arbiter"? The crime of reasoning well and articulately? You've done that yourself many times--though not much in this thread. The crime of writing a column (at Barry's request) in which I discuss rationality? It seems you're launching an ad hominem attack with this name-calling. You can do better.

Quote:

---

...many times we are on the same page in various discussions/debates. I normally appreciate your efforts and support them.

---

Yes, and you've been one of my favorite Waccobites for years, which makes your unreasonableness on this thread an especially painful surprise. Hopefully we can still maintain our friendship (although I don't think we've ever met in person) in spite of any disagreement.

Quote:

---

All I tried to do was to point out some holes in your sense of pragmatism and your style of delivery for those points.

---

Yes, you tried to do that, but you failed to make your case, partly because you were tilting at windmills, pointing out holes in positions that I hadn't even taken, and partly because I countered your arguments, and instead of dealing with that fact, you've decided to evade the issues by declaring yourself uninterested and sliding into name-calling. And any evidence that you're willing to look at possible holes in your own positions has thus far been pretty much lacking.

Quote:

---

One of the areas we differ is that I recognize that logic cannot be reduced to reality claims, especially with regard to The Social.

---

An interesting assertion, but not clear and explicit enough for me to assess, especially in regards to its applicability, if any, to the current discussion. Perhaps a discussion for the future (immediate or otherwise)?

Quote:

---

This discussion (which I still insist, good luck convincing me otherwise, consists mostly on your part as a series of tendentious diatribes. About Rules and Justice and Life and Death!!! And obviously, I don't expect you to agree with me or to be comfortable with my view!?) this discussion is about people smoking at an outdoor hippy fest in Northern California.

---

Nothing you've just said has any bearing on the validity of my position(s) or yours. Or do you imagine that labeling someone's reasoning "tendentious diatribes"--even if accurate--somehow constitutes refutation?

Quote:

---

There're the rules and there's what people do. How that works out in detail in our society is the stuff of academic careers.
If you expect the organizers of H-Fest to strictly enforce no smoking rules, of whatever substance, at their event, you're not participating in the same time / space reality that I have experienced for thirty-five years. That's all I sought, rather comically in my mind, to point out.

---

And again you commit the straw figure fallacy by talking as if that's the only option that would satisfy me. As I've reminded you before, I'd be perfectly satisfied if they had a smoking allowed event (or even a "smoking discouraged" event) and called it that, instead of falsely advertising an event as non-smoking and then not enforcing it. Then I'd have the info I need to decide whether it's safe for me to attend. It's just truth in advertising. I asked you before if you had a problem with that, Miles, and you've chosen to ignore that simple, relevant question in favor of continuing to misrepresent my position and make snarky comments. You can do better than this, but for some reason, you don't seem to want to.

Quote:

---

And making second hand smoke analogous to rape and murder...?

---

They are analogous in that they're all examples of needlessly hurting innocent people--or do you disagree with that? I did not draw an equivalency; they are quantitatively different (exposing people to smoke in a nonsmoking event being less serious than the other two), but they are qualitatively the same--all examples of hurting people. Having said that, for the unknown number of people who die each year from secondhand smoke, there is essentially no distinction between exposing people to secondhand smoke and murder, is there?

Quote:

---

You're the self-appointed arbiter of reason here, right?

---

Again with the snotty ad hominem attack. If you would either make a good case for your position(s) or graciously admit when I've made my case, you'd feel no need to evade or distort the issues in favor of inaccurate name-calling.

Quote:

---

You get more flies with honey, rather than vinegar.

---

Interesting sentiment in the context of your name-calling.

Quote:

---

Insisting on a strict enforcement of the letter of announced policies (required by law, I believe, although I am not a legal expert in that or any other area, well, expect Draft Registration, and legal stuff having to do with public protest, where I am pretty well versed, but not second hand smoke ordinances) and then repeatedly and heatedly insisting that full enforcement is the only reasonable alternative (whether you agree that your approach meets the criteria for hectoring, bullying, badgering, demanding, insisting, whatev') well, good luck with that. And by "that" I mean getting the satisfaction you are seeking by your efforts here.

---

Whether I'm likely to get satisfaction is irrelevant to the question of whether my positions are reasonable--right?

Quote:

---

I pick my battles, based on the threats I'm opposing, especially with regard to the magnitude of the danger, the possibilities of success, and the means at hand. That's what I call reasonable.

---

And the battle you've picked here is the fight for people's right to poison others in designated nonsmoking areas without consequences, and the right for promoters to maximize sales by advertising "nonsmoking" without any intention of doing their best to make it true. How noble.

Quote:

---

Just criticizing people cause I disagree with them, and don't like what they have to say, about me, or whatever the issue at hand is, the "outrage du jour"?

---

Now another ad hominem attack, making two negative, inaccurate claims about my motivations and trivializing my concerns as the "outrage du jour". You yourself know that this is not good reasoning, Miles. And regarding "...criticizing people cause I disagree with them, and don't like what they have to say, about me", let's be clear: I criticized you for publicly ridiculing me for a position I hadn't even taken, due to your careless misreading. If I ever do that to you, I hope you will criticize me for it, and if you do, I won't *ahem* whine about it.

Quote:

---

I'd never get offline and I spend enough time here as it is!

---

Too much, I'd say.

Quote:

---

...But this is ultimately online chat. How much social significance do you think it really has in the greater scheme (whatever that may be) of things?

---

Who said anything about "social significance? I just tried to get accurate info about whether the "Harmony" (LOL!) Festival was really gonna be an honest attempt at a smoke-free event so I could decide whether or not to go. What I got was evasion from the Harmony folks and a shit-storm of emotional attacks from you and others, based mostly on distortions of my positions and denial about the health threat of secondhand smoke.

Quote:

---

Bickering about who said what to who and how appropriate or inappropriate that is?

---

Again, Miles, you are the champion of "Bickering about who said what to who and how appropriate or inappropriate that is" (again, see your post #14 on this thread among other posts on other Wacco threads). You even suggested that I do it, when you said: "Feel free to dig up the language you wrote yourself, to show how I misunderstood you and that your message is focused on your problem with tobacco smoke. You're the one making the assertion that you did, that makes it your obligation to support that claim."! So I did what you said, and when I made my case, instead of acknowledging that, you suddenly turn around and attack me for "bickering...etc."--after you told me to do it! This is pathetic.

Quote:

---

Tempest in a teapot. But please, boil away if that's your thang.

---

It takes at least two to make the kind of tempest we've been having. But once again you attribute it to me, denying your part. Again, pathetic.

To repeat my basic position:

1. Everyone has a right to decide for themselves whether to smoke; this includes the right to smoke as well as the right not to.

2. Imposing one's smoke on others in a designated nonsmoking area violates that right, as it makes nonsmokers into smokers against their will.

3. Those who choose to violate others' rights create situations in which force and/or consequences become necessary to protect those around them.

4. Secondhand tobacco smoke is poisonous. In addition to the extreme discomfort it causes in those who aren't around it enough to develop tolerance to the drug, it has been shown to make millions ill, and probably kill some thousands, annually. Even people who aren't "bothered" by it can be made seriously ill.

5. Businesses which advertise an event as nonsmoking create an implied contract that they will enforce it. Failure to do so constitutes false advertising, an ethical lapse. If they won't, or feel they can't, enforce it, they have the option of not calling it nonsmoking. In other words: don't lie to me to get my money. Duh!

Any other characterizations of my positions are distortion and bullshit. Any unflattering assumptions about my motivations are similarly bullshit. If anyone wants to make a case against anything I've just listed, feel free to do so without engaging in bullshit. I could always be mistaken, and am convinceable if you make a good argument.

Dixon,

What you are responding to, that I have written, as if mine are closely argued comments, with your closely argued replies, are just off the cuff observations by me. I think that is where part of our differences lie here.

"shit-storm of emotional attacks"

If that's what you think I've engaged in here, I would suggest you are suffering from an awfully thin skin. You've lambasted me with repeated insult in your last several replies. I have in no way responded in kind. And I've clearly indicated that I'm not invested in this discussion in the way you are. I've also given you plenty of indication that I have no problem with your points of fact or your logic in your arguments, only that your style in making them is unlikely to persuade the organizers of H-Fest to meet your criteria for a contracted agreement with their patrons to enforce no smoking rules. Your arguments as to why they should, are clear and I would accede sound. Your manner in which you are making them, and attacking anyone who dares to point this out, is a form of hectoring. Here's the modal definition:

v.tr. To intimidate or dominate in a blustering way.

I could cite numerous examples from your writing below to support my claim. I am not going to. Anyone can read or reread for themselves and decide if I'm exaggerating, or not.

"you wouldn't be spending hours on screeds peppered with exclamation points and distortions."

This impression shows how much you grossly misunderstand my motivations, intentions and efforts here. When I write here, each effort takes five to ten minutes, maybe twenty. Cumulatively I suppose, over weeks and months, that might constitute hours. But in this thread I doubt I've spent more than an hour, maybe two. I've been at online chat for a couple of decades now. My typing has gotten better. My editing skills as well.

What do you want from this exchange? What is your purpose in being so belligerent and insulting? Are you looking for an apology? An admission of guilt? Emotional support? A reversal of opinion on my part?

At this point, even if I thought there was some scintilla of reason, evidence or meaning to warrant any of that, you've sufficiently alienated me, such that I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Badgering and insulting those with whom you disagree, is not an effective way to gain their sympathy or cooperation. I know this both from observation and experience.

And, really, there are much bigger things to be exercised about in our tiny part of the world, let alone the bigger, global, universal one. I'm much more concerned about the state of the economy, the environment, and many other things large and small, than I am about a hypocritical smoking ban at a well established outdoor festival. One in which patterns of open defiance of restrictions on smoking have been pretty well ingrained in the culture of the event.

If your goal is to change that pattern, I'll suggest once again, that you are not being persuasive, even if your logic is tight. But keep slinging the shit if that's what you feel is appropriate. It's quite a performance. I'll give you that.

A thought I have had, which I don't see expressed here yet, at least not exactly, is that distinguishing between tobacco and marijuana smoking, in the mind of those who smoke both, may be a difficult thing to achieve. I recall my travels in western Europe thirty years ago, where it was most common to smoke them together in spliffs and chillums.

I can't speak for contemporary practice there, as I haven't been back, and I haven't spoken to anyone about it recently. And yes, this is not Europe. We're different.

I'm just saying that unless you can get cooperation on a total ban on the smoking of anything at H-Fest, other than in designated smoking zones, you probably are going to continue to be frustrated. And since smoking marijuana is illegal, good luck persuading potheads to crowd into areas to imbibe, areas where they are much more easily jumped by the cops for rousting, ticketing and/or arrest.

And what about incense and smudging with sage and other aromatic herbs? Does that constitute smoking? It certainly involves the production of smoke. Some incense smoke makes me as ill as tobacco smoke does. When I'm exposed to it, I leave the area.

I don't demand that those who are producing it change their cultural practices. One reason I've never hung out in the Goddess Tent, is because of all the smoke that permeates the atmosphere there.

I might go to H-Fest on Friday Dixon. Late afternoon until the end of Michael Franti & Spearhead's set. They're headlining. If you're there and we recognize each other, then we'll meet for the first time in Meat World, and be able to communicate with the full set of signals that being in the physical presence of someone provides. Then facial expression, vocal tone, other displays of affect and intention, given the immediacy and reciprocity of spoken conversation, might help deter the kinds of misunderstandings, suspicion and reactive emotional response, that I see in this thread.

Or maybe not?

Quote:

---

we'll meet for the first time in Meat World

---

yet another in a series of recreational thread hijacks: for those who may not know - there's an etymology for "meat world"

Miles, I think I'm gonna follow your lead and quit investing so much time and energy into carefully reading your lengthy "off the cuff observations" and crafting carefully considered responses to every point you try to make. I'm embarrassed that it's taken me so long to realize that trying to reason with you, about this issue at least, is a fool's errand. I tend to have a (naive?) assumption that trying one more time to make things clear will get through to people, so it's hard for me to resist the temptation to engage fully with, for instance, this last screed of yours that I'm responding to. But I'm sick to death of the soul-sucking bullshit in this thread, so even though you may have some good points here, I'm no longer willing to wade through the bullshit to get to them. And if you think characterizing much of what you're saying as bullshit is harsh, I'll show you the respect of giving you one example here (which is more than you'd do for me): Calling my assertiveness and my insistence on certain rights and on getting a relevant question answered (by an organization which ripped me off last year by selling me a ticket under false pretenses of being a nonsmoking event) "hectoring" and "belligerent" is unmitigated, reeking, insulting bullshit.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles;135524[SIZE=3:

I might go to H-Fest on Friday Dixon...If you're there and we recognize each other, then we'll meet for the first time in Meat World, and be able to communicate with the full set of signals that being in the physical presence of someone provides. Then facial expression, vocal tone, other displays of affect and intention, given the immediacy and reciprocity of spoken conversation, might help deter the kinds of misunderstandings, suspicion and reactive emotional response, that I see in this thread.[/SIZE]

---

Thanks for the invitation. I look forward to meeting you in person for a less contentious visit some time, Miles, but it won't be at the fucking "Harmony" Festival.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Seems like you guys have beat this (and each other) to a bloody pulp.
How about you just let this go?
:heart:

---

:kidfight:

Well I guess you guys weren't quite ready to disengage yet. How about now?
That means Miles and the rest of the participants are big enough to let this lie as is, or to chime with something unequivocally kind. :heart:

Smoke or no smoke, I'm looking forward to having a blast at the Harmony Jubilee!

Barry I'm puzzled at your attempts to douse this excellent conflagration. I don't think I've ever seen that before from you--maybe I've just missed it. I've been following it as an avid fan of humane rationality and of humbly standing up for the right thing. Also as a past victim of Miles' scorn--which successfully silenced me for a year. Dixon's resilience and continued reasonableness in the face of ever more scorching excoriation (pardon the alliteration) have been this underdog's delight.

What I have especially appreciated are the examples--from P. Brinton especially--of wise expression. (is my opinion subjective? only partly.) I need all the tutoring I can get in that regard, and Wacco has been a wonderful source for it--as well as great lessons in the opposite.

so thanks to all who have contributed to this thread--by now a hefty rope.

kathy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

:kidfight:

Well I guess you guys weren't quite ready to disengage yet. How about now?
That means Miles and the rest of the participants are big enough to let this lie as is, or to chime with something unequivocally kind. :heart:

Smoke or no smoke, I'm looking forward to having a blast at the Harmony Jubilee!

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:

Barry I'm puzzled at your attempts to douse this excellent conflagration. I don't think I've ever seen that before from you--maybe I've just missed it.

---

I have stepped in to cool various :flame: "conflagrations" :flame: over the years. Sometimes publicly sometime privately.

Quote:

---

I've been following it as an avid fan of humane rationality and of humbly standing up for the right thing.

---

Me too!

Quote:

---

Also as a past victim of Miles' scorn--which successfully silenced me for a year.

---

I know and I have missed your valuable contributions here. :tear:

Quote:

---

Dixon's resilience and continued reasonableness in the face of ever more scorching excoriation (pardon the alliteration) have been this underdog's delight.

What I have especially appreciated are the examples--from P. Brinton especially--of wise expression. (is my opinion subjective? only partly.) I need all the tutoring I can get in that regard, and Wacco has been a wonderful source for it--as well as great lessons in the opposite.

---

While it has been somewhat entertaining and illustrative to see these great titans thoroughly trash each other, and I can understand how it strengthens your skill and courage to defend against such attacks, I'm interested in preventing collateral damage to others who are reading and who have no need or desired to mount or defend against such assaults.

Just as Miles scorn silenced you as a participant, it has a similar effect on readers. I've received two private complaints about bullying and the like. My strongest commitment as moderator is to keep this space safe and respectful for all members, both writing and reading. I do give people wide berths, and it's always a very imprecise judgement call of when it's too much. In this case, I felt it was time to try to insert the control rods to keep it from getting out of hand.

This particular issue has felt like a tempest in a teapot to me from the beginning. Though, OTOH, it does raise various important broader issues of personal responsibility, personal freedom, and the realities and responsibilities of the space holders, whether that be the Harmony Festival, the U.S. Government, or for that matter, me!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:

I've been following it as an avid fan of humane rationality and of humbly standing up for the right thing. Also as a past victim of Miles' scorn--which successfully silenced me for a year. Dixon's resilience and continued reasonableness in the face of ever more scorching excoriation (pardon the alliteration) have been this underdog's delight.

---

I already privately emailed Patrick Brinton my thanks for his splendid contributions to this horrendous thread, but have since decided it's better to give people thanks publicly. Thank you, Kathy, for your reasonable and beautifully articulated response. I've been the target of a lot of attacks on this thread (and at least one other) lately, and sometimes I feel so alone and start to wonder if I'm crazy for not seeing sense in the seemingly bizarre and unreasonable attacks on me. I get stressed out and lose sleep, racking my brains over how I can make people understand me! When someone like you, Patrick or Sabrina comes along and shows me, through your supportive posts, that I've really made myself clear all along and my position is really as reasonable as it seems to me--well, it's enormously appreciated. So thanks, Kathy (and Patrick and Sabrina)!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

This particular issue has felt like a tempest in a teapot to me from the beginning.

---

Yes, to you and many others. Any expression from you of empathy or concern for those who suffer or even die from sidestream smoke has been conspicuous by its absence.

I remember the good old days when it was a Healthy, Happy hippie festival. Now it is just too big... and with that bigness comes a host of problems that were not present in the early years. The smoking is a big one for me and even tho the event is supposed to be smoke free, it has not been when I went in the last few years. This is really sad. I would love to go listen to some of the bands and enjoy the festival, but the large crowds and especially the smoking deter me from attending.

This is not the only event that has this smoking problem. I went to see Further on New Years a few years ago and the cig smoke was TERRIBLE. It was the worst I've ever experienced. Those clove smokes were horrible. I will not attend a large indoor concert again.
At least the Harmony Festival is outside and the air clears relatively quickly, but I'm just not going to take a chance on it this year.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Yes, to you and many others. Any expression from you of empathy or concern for those who suffer or even die from sidestream smoke has been conspicuous by its absence.

---

he hasn't said whether he thinks kittens are cute recently either. Generally, I always make a point of pro-forma conspicuous empathy, and try to fake sincerity as needed.
Really, Dixon, don't you see how hyperbolic this all is?? Not that there's any problem with that - many discussions on the web take that form. I see it as an equivalent to a literary style. Some threads are minimalist, with people making their points with subtlety and simple observations. Others are bombastic and full of piss and vinegar. Often, the same people participate in both, usually (hopefully) with no personal animus involved. Seems to me that this thread can/should be seen in that light.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Yes, to you and many others. Any expression from you of empathy or concern for those who suffer or even die from sidestream smoke has been conspicuous by its absence.

---

While second hand smoke can have health effects when exposed to over a long term, and particularly in an enclosed space, I'm not going to buy it as a significant health problem at the 3-day large outdoor Harmony Festival. Yes, is might be unpleasant (I find tobacco unpleasant has well), but you can move. You can choose to be indignant about that or not.:footstomp: And please spare me from the case of being packed in a large crowd where you can't move. There's lots of places to be that are not dense - and some of those are the best places!

I took Dixon's main point to be about integrity: you mean what you say and you say what you mean*, whether "you" are a big festival or a person. And his efforts to get the HF to do that--either to rigorously enforce the no-smoking policy or to come out and say that, for example, smoking is "discouraged" rather than prohibited--have been noble, in my book.

But I'm guessing that the issue of sympathy for the victims of smoking was an emotional leak of the frustration that Dixon may be feeling, and maybe even a sense of being ganged-up on...kind of like victims of second-hand smoke. It wasn't part of the main point (although it underpins it), and it carried heat--no surprise that more small fires erupted.

Dixon (and all) I hope you're not offended by the armchair psychoanalysis here. I love that we are engaged in this endeavor to untangle some really important stuff...each in our own way.

kathy

*bit of wisdom spoken by some cartoon character from my childhood--popeye?

Now that we've all come to agreement about the issues at hand. (I keed, I keed.) Three comments.

Kpage9, you say you are/were, "...a past victim of Miles' scorn--which successfully silenced me for a year." I have just spent about forty minutes reviewing our exchanges, aside from my dumping a commercial review from "My" Favorite Restaurants thread (not my finest hour, but I won't belabor the issue, it's all there in the record for those interested and masochistic enough to revisit it) and our brief interaction at the end of that discussion, I fail to see what it is you're referring to.

And in that particular interaction, you were snippy with me, and I suggested you reread the thread. I'm not interested in a debate about the definition of words, but I fail to see how my reply to you was scornful. Irritated, yes, but hardly: "The feeling or belief that someone or something is worthless or despicable; contempt".

In fact I found at least two instances in which our interactions were pleasant and we were in agreement. So if there's a record of my withering scorn directed at you, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Overnight (yes, I too think about what is written here, and like Dixon have feelings) I was confusing you with Katy the Kat and thinking my refutation of the odious, racist lie that most Palestinian Arabs were never from Palestine and are the "trash" from other Arab nations foisted upon Israel in an anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist plot to overwhelm and destroy Israel. That is a claim that I subject to SCORN and will do so at any and every appropriate opportunity. But in that "debate" we were on the same side!


Barry, making reference to people who have complained to you privately about my behavior here is a low blow. As Dixon ably addressed in his "Gospel According to..." thread today. If I wanted, and thought it appropriate, I could adumbrate the litany of complaints I've heard about you, both here in public, and privately by spoken word and email, but I won't, other than the reference I just made. People complain. Especially when heated disputes, profound or not, trivial or not, take place. If the complaint is sufficiently justified, if it is about a rectifiable problem, then there are ways to handle it. Privately, preferably, publicly if necessary.

On a separate but related matter, stepping in to "quash" the argument between Dixon and me, I won't speak for him, but it had little to no effect on my behavior. Your interventions came at a time when I was winding down. It was my sense that Dixon was as well. It was just a little irritating because of the "paterfamilia" role you took on.

He and I are adults (despite any appearances to the contrary!?) and can handle ourselves without a referee. If you were trying to protect the delicate sensibilities of other Waccoons (Kudos Kpage9 for coining the term!) may I suggest that they're also adults? And that if something they read here is upsetting to them they can always choose to ignore it? Despite any appearances to the contrary, I do that all the time!

I've recently been reminded of the behavior I call "Love Bombing". It derives from cult recruitment practices especially back in the late sixties and early seventies, but continuing today (and probably started at the dawn of human time) effusive expressions of love and affection in order to inveigle the lonely and emotionally vulnerable into a cult. Another definition my brother recently reminded me of is the political use of displays of affection, when non-violently opposing violent authority. The proverbial flower in the barrel of a National Guardsman's rifle. The recent "Love Police" tactic/movement in the protests in Britain. Anarchists who go around offering hugs to riot cops.

But I use it to refer to the unsolicited imposition of psychological observation and analysis, coupled with expressions of esteem and affection, as a mechanism to deflect or submerge conflict, strong emotion, anger.

Last week a facebook friend used it in a political debate, in an effort to resolve the conflict and when I called her on it, her response was to be insulted, get huffy and withdraw, because, "I'm not welcome here." She was welcome, just not her uninvited psychologizing intervention.

A few days later a relative of mine used a similar tactic to try and help, in a situation that didn't need any help. It's a behavior that I'm sensitive to, because to use Dixon's term, it's bullshit! It's also overbearing and intrusive. Not to mention patronizing and controlling in a sneaky way.

Some people are uncomfortable with conflict, some are fine with it, within limits. Jumping into a conflict and starting to declaim about the emotional reasons someone is "unhappy" and to start asking questions and making statements like, "If you know what you desire, then you can achieve it." (True enough but a platitude in a context where people aren't talking about what they want or don't want) or making an observation such as, "I hear you're feeling a lot of anger, is that because you didn't get what you wanted as a child? You need to address those wounds so you won't be so affected when people don't mirror your own values and goals." etc.?

Well, that's what I call "Love Bombing" and as Dixon so ably articulated in his piece early this morning about the differences between Rationalist and New Age cultures, it's "Bullshit!" As well as incredibly irritating when one is trying to have a discussion.

I'm not saying, Barry, that you did a full on "Love Bombing" assault in this thread. I only bring it up because it's something I've been thinking about, and dealing with lately, even more than the usual amount that happens occasionally in these times and our culture. It came out of poor applications of the insights from the Humanistic Psychology movement, I first started encountering it in the late seventies in college.

If I sign up for therapy, I expect something akin to Love Bombing (hopefully not just that, and to the extent it is used as a way to build self-esteem and to prompt reflection in a client, that it is done skillfully and appropriately in a context specific manner. Not just used as a blanket to suppress strong emotions.) If I"m having a conversation, a discussion, perhaps even an argument, I haven't signed up to be psychologically analyzed, nor am I seeking advice on what I should feel and how I should think about why I feel that way.


Dixon, I'm not going to continue the debate about smoking policies at H-Fest with you here. We've both made ourselves sufficiently clear. I just want to say that even though your argument/comments were heated, I never took them personally, at least not very much. Even when they sometimes consisted of a series of insults and expressions of outrage. Most often, they made me laugh. Not at you, at your rampaging passion and hyperbole. Like I said, quite a performance. I was actually enjoying it, except for the occasional brief stings when my pride was engaged.

The lack of affect in written language, was, I think, a big part of our conflict in this thread. When I was being facetious, you took me as being serious. When I was telegraphing my humor, you read it (I think) as dismissive.

In a nutshell, I found your approach to be legalistic and demanding, and I didn't think you took into account some of the nuances, history and social complications that are part of the issue. I tried to point that out in a humorous discursive manner, any evaluation of my success or failure, or just muddying the waters, is up to those who choose to read this thread. No worries Mate.

Sorry you won't make the scene. I still haven't decided whether to go tomorrow. There are many other competing and more economical celebrations happening, starting this evening and going through the weekend. $60 for Michael Franti and clouds of second hand smoke of whatever kind... I really do see your points! Even if that wasn't made clear by me, to you.

Onward Droogies and Malchicks, may smoking at outdoor and indoor festivals be the least of our problems, including the associated contestation.